Appeal No. 1995-2437
Application No. 08/035,723
112, first paragraph , as based on a non-enabling disclosure. We reverse the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We do not reach the merits of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§
102(f) and 112, first paragraph, and remand this application to the examiner for
reevaluation of those rejections in light of U.S. Patent No. 5,872,222.
35 U.S.C.§ 103
The claims on appeal are directed to methods of increasing activation or
proliferation of T cells, and methods of increasing the in vivo antibody response to an
antigen, wherein the methods comprise administering a composition comprising a
molecular conjugate having a polymer backbone or a microbead coupled with a plurality of
binding molecules specific for a T-cell antigen. Individual claims require that the T cell
antigen is CD3; that the binding molecule is Fv, Fab, or F(ab’) ; etc. All of the claims,
2
however, require that the binding molecules lack Fc portions.
Williams and Geppert each discloses activation of T-cells with anti-CD3 antibodies
bound to Sepharose, but neither discloses T-cell binding molecules lacking Fc portions.
Nor does the examiner rely on Goers or Roitt to remedy this deficiency. The statement of
the rejection contains only an oblique reference to binding molecules
that lack Fc portions: “Fv, Fab and F(ab’)2 fragments of antibodies and methods of
producing these fragments are well known in the art.” See the Answer, page 5.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007